Talk:Balanced
Perhaps a hint on what a "support" would be, for the newer players looking up the phrase! RT | Talk 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) :Sort of re-wrote it, tell me what you guys think. -Auron 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC) ::DANG biased page. A little less of the "Gimmick" talk would be helpful. Its a STRATEGY, theres a huge difference. Plus, a "balanced" team isn't rigidly defined. You're mainly talking about PvP, anyway. Balance applies to PvE too. Entrea Sumatae 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) :::Seconded; this article makes it sound as if Balanced teams are the standard everyone should aspire to for PvP. When this clearly isn't the case, since the ratio of "gimmick" to "balanced" is like...what...10:1? A "gimmick" can really only be called that if it's abusing something imba (IWAY, Spiritway, past SF x 8 are fine). Other gimmick builds and teams are just crap which pose no threat to balanced teams. Gimmick implies an unfair or dishonest advantage of some sort. (T/ ) 05:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Balanced IS what everyone should aspire to. It's just harder to play, and the reward isn't enough that people would want to put in the extra effort. While the definitions Auron put up may imply to you that gimmick relies on unfair or dishonest builds, it is meant to mean that their builds are 'one-trick ponies'. If it (the strategy) fails, then the rest of the team can't support and it will crumble. --Kale Ironfist 06:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC) :::::(EC) A gimmick is any build that tries to use skills (not skill) to win. A build that is a bunch of random stuff like 8 dervishes or 8 starburst eles are still gimmicks - even though they might not actually achieve victory, the intent was to overwhelm the balanced opponent with an assload of damage. :::::Yes, Entropy, balanced teams are the standard everyone should aspire to for PvP. If you can't run balanced, you're a bad player; it doesn't take any skill at all to run a gimmick to get to the top of the ladder. Case in point? My old guild, Thousend Tigers Apund Ur Head Ttgr. They got to top 20 running a gimmick. Did they exploit skills to win? Yes. Were they skilled players? No. :::::Entrea; how does balance apply to PvE? PvE is broken into two parts; the bulk of it is stupidly easy, where no matter what build you use, you win... and the rest of it is stupidly hard (see also: DoA), where you only bring a super specific build that exploits game mechanics and monster AI to achieve victory. If the point of your build is to exploit game mechanics, you are running a gimmick. :::::When I talk about gimmicks, I know what I'm saying; I've run more gimmicks than balanced in my time as a PvPer. HA is all about gimmick vs gimmick play, and GvG has a good amount of it too (not to mention HB, which are 90%+ gimmicks). I'm telling it like it is when I write about it; if there's any bias at all, it's that I've favored gimmickry too much. -Auron 07:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::@Kale: Yeah, one-trick pony is a really good term to describe it. If the point of the gimmick fails somehow (if the spikes fail or if the web of protection falls through), the build dies immediately. In a balanced build, if spikes fail, you keep going; if your Bsurge dies, your team doesn't crumble in three seconds (usually). -Auron 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::One-trick pony is bettar general term; I'd reserve gimmick for the ones that actually work, sorta. I'll shut up elsewise since you're the PvP pros, I've never been to HA...not sure why I bother commenting on PvP articles really :P General Wikistandards of objectivity meh. (T/ ) 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::::PvP pro? Not me, I suck, majorly. I just understand the theory better than the masses. Hmm, that reminds me, I once met Auron in a GvG as evidenced here. --Kale Ironfist 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC) I always run balanced, but this article is clearly inferior to the wiki's passing grade. It is very, very subjective, making sound gimmick builds like invincible stuff. Balanced should have counters to gimmick build anyways (best example was spiritway in HA, come on bring a mes and they are done). This should be rewritten or deleted IMO. --66.131.53.220 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC) :I made the same observation but I think it's the only way to go, tbh, unless you want to trim it down to a barebones Glossary entry. Maybe could reword a bit to say that "While gimmick builds are powerful, they are also easy to counter", more eloquently of course. (T/ ) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC) ::Did my best... the English is poor since it is not my primary language but I believe it is less biased that way. Revert if you feel like it.--66.131.53.220 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Delete? lol, balance? This is GW, don't be silly! --[[User:Readem|'Readem']] 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) :Disagree with deleting this article, as a "glossary term", the term balanced should have a definition. So long as this article does not degrade into discussing *specific* builds, prof combinations, then worth having. --Wolfie (talk| ) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ::Agree with delete like i said above. --66.131.53.220 01:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC) :::we NEVER use banaced anymore =O -- Warwick (Talk)/( ) 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Ranger? Are there no Rangers at all in balanced team builds? I would think that a ranger can be a good midliner, as for interruption and/or pressure. Breintje(P/T) 08:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) :The problem with Rangers is that they are inherently powerful if they are doing anything right. For example, interrupting - almost all Ranger interrupts are overpowered. Spiking - Rangers can deal enormous damage at range. Pressure - Apply Poison. Not to mention RaO. A cripshot may be part of a balance build, but a lot of the Ranger's best skills are overpowered/gimmicky, so putting them together is kind of a contradiction. (T/ ) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC) ::What I ment to ask was why the Ranger profession wasnt mentioned in the article, as afaik most balanced teambuilds do have one ranger in the team. At least last time I tried balanced there was. Breintje(P/T) 12:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC) ::: Just thinking of Izzy makes me remember all those interrupt functionalities he added to rangers. Magebane and dshot may be balancing, but they are annoying, admit. On a different note, people need ranged cover, hence either Ranger or Paragon. Since Paras are shorter range and less resistant (Rangers have inherent elem. res.), Rangers are a good option to fufill a support/defensive role. But I'd say DPS... -_- --Alc ^^ 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) ::::........dshot and to a lesser extent Magebane are horribly broken. Anyway, last time I checked Rangers don't have party-wide unremovable buffs. They are not a substitute for Paragons. About Rangers in "balanced": I don't know. There is more than one version of "balanced" because it is just a concept, not one specific team. I am just saying that by including a Ranger, that team automatically moves farther away from being "balanced" (in terms of overpowered etc). (T/ ) 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)